MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: #UnleashSean on August 13, 2023, 08:53:09 PM
-
As someone who lives in Milwaukee County, but no allegiance to the brewers, I am completely against the government paying for renovations in the amount they ask for.
What is the rest of scoops thoughts?
-
I don’t know much about the situation, but I think the government owns the stadium and probably is on the hook for renovations/upgrades/etc. I’m sure there is some lawyerly, slightly gray, ambiguous contract and both sides will appear strong and then both will come together in the end. Or, sell the stadium to the Brewers?
-
They should’ve never stopped the stadium tax.
-
They should’ve never stopped the stadium tax.
Was it stopped? Any idea when?
-
Was it stopped? Any idea when?
2020.
-
They should’ve never stopped the stadium tax.
There was no choice. It was written into the original agreement.
-
If the Brewers wanted a completely new facility, I would say no. But updating something that they own? Yep. I doubt the Brewers would have any interest in purchasing it.
-
Much ta do 'bout nothin'. Political posturin' wit da eventual increase in taxes passed on ta John Q. Public. Wood have bin an issue raised by Attanasio 3 yeers ago, butt covid messed up his plans, hey?
-
Much ta do 'bout nothin'. Political posturin' wit da eventual increase in taxes passed on ta John Q. Public. Wood have bin an issue raised by Attanasio 3 yeers ago, butt covid messed up his plans, hey?
Good thing it stays in Milwaukee County and doesn’t hit Ozaukee, hey?
-
It don't matta. Just chump change, hey?
-
Here's the deal:
1) The amount can be debated (and will be) but the state is on the hook for repairs and upgrades as part of the original agreement.
2) Milwaukee and Wisconsin have supported the Brewers admirably. The attendance for a city Milwaukee's size is great and the Brewers have responded with a generally competitive team. Notwithstanding the debate on upgrades and maintenance, the stadium is really, really nice and the Brewers and Wisconsin have done an admirable job of keeping it that way.
3) For all the talk, there are but four cities that "think" they're major league ready -- Charlotte, Nashville, Orlando and Portland, OR. I'm assuming Las Vegas already has the As. Of this group, only Charlotte has enough corporate headquarters to rival Milwaukee and to ensure a team's long-term success.
4) Portland has Uncle Phil at Nike and that might almost be enough but that city is at least five years away from having a stadium and there's no recent history of baseball in Portland.
5) Orlando has no recent history of baseball, fierce competition for the entertainment dollar and dubious corporate support. It's also too close to Tampa and I seriously doubt the State of Florida will be held hostage for a stadium.
6) Nashville? Yeah right. Next...
Some of us who are old enough to remember the Braves leaving town in 1965 find the whole threat repulsive. While the Brewers may be bluffing, that's a bad thing to do in a market that walked away from a team they loved over the same issues back in the day.
P.S. -- In the 58 years since the Braves left, I've never forgotten. And, I never will. Never have cheered for the Braves and only been to Atlanta Stadium once. The Braves, well, they suck.
-
Here's the deal:
1) The amount can be debated (and will be) but the state is on the hook for repairs and upgrades as part of the original agreement.
2) Milwaukee and Wisconsin have supported the Brewers admirably. The attendance for a city Milwaukee's size is great and the Brewers have responded with a generally competitive team. Notwithstanding the debate on upgrades and maintenance, the stadium is really, really nice and the Brewers and Wisconsin have done an admirable job of keeping it that way.
3) For all the talk, there are but four cities that "think" they're major league ready -- Charlotte, Nashville, Orlando and Portland, OR. I'm assuming Las Vegas already has the As. Of this group, only Charlotte has enough corporate headquarters to rival Milwaukee and to ensure a team's long-term success.
4) Portland has Uncle Phil at Nike and that might almost be enough but that city is at least five years away from having a stadium and there's no recent history of baseball in Portland.
5) Orlando has no recent history of baseball, fierce competition for the entertainment dollar and dubious corporate support. It's also too close to Tampa and I seriously doubt the State of Florida will be held hostage for a stadium.
6) Nashville? Yeah right. Next...
Some of us who are old enough to remember the Braves leaving town in 1965 find the whole threat repulsive. While the Brewers may be bluffing, that's a bad thing to do in a market that walked away from a team they loved over the same issues back in the day.
P.S. -- In the 58 years since the Braves left, I've never forgotten. And, I never will. Never have cheered for the Braves and only been to Atlanta Stadium once. The Braves, well, they suck.
Eh, the Braves fan support cratered in Milwaukee. They went from getting 2 million plus a season to not even getting 1 million and (I believe) finishing at the bottom attendance wise. The fact that they even got a second chance at a franchise is a minor miracle, but let's be real...if MLB started from scratch and could put stadiums wherever it wanted, Milwaukee would not have a team.
-
Eh, the Braves fan support cratered in Milwaukee. They went from getting 2 million plus a season to not even getting 1 million and (I believe) finishing at the bottom attendance wise. The fact that they even got a second chance at a franchise is a minor miracle, but let's be real...if MLB started from scratch and could put stadiums wherever it wanted, Milwaukee would not have a team.
You have it backwards.
The Braves didn't move from Milwaukee to Atlanta because attendance was cratering here. Attendance cratered here BECAUSE the Braves were moving.
When Lou Perini sold the Braves at the end of the 1962 season to a group of Chicago investors, everyone in Milwaukee paying attention knew that the team was being purchased in order to be relocated. It was the worst kept secret in sports. Of course attendance dropped in 1963 and 1964------the Milwaukee Braves were a lame duck team. And when the move finalized in the winter of 1964, they couldn't draw flies for the 1965 season.
From their move here in 1953 through 1959, the Braves finished at the top or near the top of National League attendance every year. Milwaukee didn't turn into a bad baseball town over the course of a couple of years then. They fell victim to new owners perceiving greener pastures.
-
You have it backwards.
The Braves didn't move from Milwaukee to Atlanta because attendance was cratering here. Attendance cratered here BECAUSE the Braves were moving.
When Lou Perini sold the Braves at the end of the 1962 season to a group of Chicago investors, everyone in Milwaukee paying attention knew that the team was being purchased in order to be relocated. It was the worst kept secret in sports. Of course attendance dropped in 1963 and 1964------the Milwaukee Braves were a lame duck team. And when the move finalized in the winter of 1964, they couldn't draw flies for the 1965 season.
From their move here in 1953 through 1959, the Braves finished at the top or near the top of National League attendance every year. Milwaukee didn't turn into a bad baseball town over the course of a couple of years then. They fell victim to new owners perceiving greener pastures.
"Whatever" - Sultan
-
You have it backwards.
The Braves didn't move from Milwaukee to Atlanta because attendance was cratering here. Attendance cratered here BECAUSE the Braves were moving.
When Lou Perini sold the Braves at the end of the 1962 season to a group of Chicago investors, everyone in Milwaukee paying attention knew that the team was being purchased in order to be relocated. It was the worst kept secret in sports. Of course attendance dropped in 1963 and 1964------the Milwaukee Braves were a lame duck team. And when the move finalized in the winter of 1964, they couldn't draw flies for the 1965 season.
From their move here in 1953 through 1959, the Braves finished at the top or near the top of National League attendance every year. Milwaukee didn't turn into a bad baseball town over the course of a couple of years then. They fell victim to new owners perceiving greener pastures.
Thank you for that historical context on the last couple of seasons, but Braves' attendance started falling long before the sale of the team. It had already been sliced in half between 1957 and 1961. (From 2.2 to 1.1 million.)
-
Eh, the Braves fan support cratered in Milwaukee. They went from getting 2 million plus a season to not even getting 1 million and (I believe) finishing at the bottom attendance wise. The fact that they even got a second chance at a franchise is a minor miracle, but let's be real...if MLB started from scratch and could put stadiums wherever it wanted, Milwaukee would not have a team.
The only year attendance “cratered” was their final season. 1965. They were on a downward trend, but saw a nice increase in 1964, drawing 910K. And the seasons before that the bottom did not fall out. They had one bottom 5 finish before ‘65
and were never in the bottom 4.
Plus, drawing 2M was rare back then.
Maybe one team per season would pull that off. And only about half the teams were even drawing 1M. So using their 2.2M down to 1.1M by 1961 is not a good argument that Milwaukee was not supporting the team well. It just wasn’t spectacular anymore like in 1957.
-
Thank you for that historical context on the last couple of seasons, but Braves' attendance started falling long before the sale of the team. It had already been sliced in half between 1957 and 1961. (From 2.2 to 1.1 million.)
Yes. And at 1.1 million in 1961 that put them 5th in National League attendance in an 8 team league. Attendance--wise they finished a few thousand behind the pennant winning Reds; they finished a half million ahead of both the Phillies and the Cubs who each drew a spectacular 600,000+ for the season.
If attendance in Milwaukee was " cratering", attendance in Philadelphia and Chicago wasn't even registering a pulse.
Milwaukee did not lose baseball in the 1960s for lack of support.
-
Yes. And at 1.1 million in 1961 that put them 5th in National League attendance in an 8 team league. Attendance--wise they finished a few thousand behind the pennant winning Reds; they finished a half million ahead of both the Phillies and the Cubs who each drew a spectacular 600,000+ for the season.
If attendance in Milwaukee was " cratering", attendance in Philadelphia and Chicago wasn't even registering a pulse.
Milwaukee did not lose baseball in the 1960s for lack of support.
Figures clearly support that.
-
The only year attendance “cratered” was their final season. 1965. They were on a downward trend, but saw a nice increase in 1964, drawing 910K. And the seasons before that the bottom did not fall out. They had one bottom 5 finish before ‘65
and we’re never in the bottom 4.
Plus, drawing 2M was rare back then.
Maybe one team per season would pull that off. And only about half the teams were even drawing 1M. So using their 2.2M down to 1.1M by 1961 is not a good argument that Milwaukee was not supporting the team well. It just wasn’t spectacular anymore like in 1957.
Yes. And at 1.1 million in 1961 that put them 5th in National League attendance in an 8 team league. Attendance--wise they finished a few thousand behind the pennant winning Reds; they finished a half million ahead of both the Phillies and the Cubs who each drew a spectacular 600,000+ for the season.
If attendance in Milwaukee was " cratering", attendance in Philadelphia and Chicago wasn't even registering a pulse.
Milwaukee did not lose baseball in the 1960s for lack of support.
Alright, alright...y'all with all your facts and stuff. :D
-
Alright, alright...y'all with all your facts and stuff. :D
:)
-
You have it backwards.
The Braves didn't move from Milwaukee to Atlanta because attendance was cratering here. Attendance cratered here BECAUSE the Braves were moving.
When Lou Perini sold the Braves at the end of the 1962 season to a group of Chicago investors, everyone in Milwaukee paying attention knew that the team was being purchased in order to be relocated. It was the worst kept secret in sports. Of course attendance dropped in 1963 and 1964------the Milwaukee Braves were a lame duck team. And when the move finalized in the winter of 1964, they couldn't draw flies for the 1965 season.
From their move here in 1953 through 1959, the Braves finished at the top or near the top of National League attendance every year. Milwaukee didn't turn into a bad baseball town over the course of a couple of years then. They fell victim to new owners perceiving greener pastures.
Brother Dribbler:
Exactly. The ownership group was led by Bill Bartholomay. They saw plans for a new stadium in Atlanta and they saw a virgin television market that extended from Richmond, VA down through Florida and west to Louisiana and Mississippi. In those days, there were no Superstations and cable. Braves TV was syndicated throughout the south. Braves radio at the time had the largest radio network in baseball.
In short, broadcast rights drove the move to Atlanta.
Bartholomay was as bad an owner in Atlanta as he was in Milwaukee. The team was drawing fans to Atlanta Stadium by the dozens (literally) and may have set several modern records for the lowest attendance at a so-called major league game. The only attraction the team had was Henry Aaron and they even blew that by failing to fully embrace him.
By the mid-1970s, the Braves reportedly were on the move again when a communications entrepreneur nearly puked over the thought that his WTCG-TV might lose its rights to the Braves and to more than 600 hours of cheap programming. The entrepreneur stepped up and bought the team and saved it for Atlanta. His name: Ted Turner!
That's right, broadcast rights kept the Braves in Atlanta. A few years later, the Tribune company bought the Cubs for essentially the same reason -- 162 days of programming, three hours a day. Even broadcasting the Hillbillies, Green Acres and assorted other bad, low-cost 1960s programming, this was a hell of a bargain.
-
I may have missed it, but I haven't heard anyone from the Brewers threaten to move anywhere. All this chatter is being whipped up by the media, so they have something to write about. The state, county and city have all been doing some posturing, but they'll eventually get their $hit together, probably before the end of this year, and the stadium upkeep will be funded and the lease will be extended through at least 2040 and hopefully longer.
-
I may have missed it, but I haven't heard anyone from the Brewers threaten to move anywhere. All this chatter is being whipped up by the media, so they have something to write about. The state, county and city have all been doing some posturing, but they'll eventually get their $hit together, probably before the end of this year, and the stadium upkeep will be funded and the lease will be extended through at least 2040 and hopefully longer.
Of course the Brewers haven’t overtly threatened to move. That would be dumb.
They have just released information to certain people like “we don’t want to leave but..” They also have Manfred to do the dirty work. This is how the game is played.
-
Of course the Brewers haven’t overtly threatened to move. That would be dumb.
They have just released information to certain people like “we don’t want to leave but..” They also have Manfred to do the dirty work. This is how the game is played.
Source?
-
Source?
Here is an article that mentions Manfred's comments about the stadium AND has a quote from a source.
https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/brewers-may-threaten-to-leave-milwaukee-if-wisconsin-taxpayers-wont-fund-stadium-upgrades-per-report/
Not exactly a new playbook. The commissioner plays the "bad cop" role while the team releases "good cop" quotes from sources.
-
Hope Mark's new city is good with him half-assing its contention window away!
-
The Brewers aren't going anywhere.